Should there be a Google USA?

[mcanerin]

For some time now it's been clear that regional search engines give a boost to websites relevant to that region - and that's how it should be.

But Google.com isn't regional - it's international (kind of - we'll get to that in a moment).

This means that US netizens are possibly being stuck with worse results than the rest of the world, because currently google.us resolves to google.com.

I cross back and forth across the US-Canadian border a lot, and when I'm in the US I'd like to see results that are more relevent to me than the standard international fare.

Right now, the .com version doubles as the US one (that's where US local results show up, for example). But that's messy, and still isn't as relevent to US netizens as a Google actually intended for them.

So what do you think? Treating the US as second class by forcing them to use the international version seems just as wrong as forcing the international community to have to deal with an increasingly US-centric "international" version, but that's just my (non-US citizen) opinion.

Another option is to get rid of all the regionals and just localize based on what the visitor tells you (or their IP, etc).

Ian

[NFFC]

Seems only us non-americans are interested in this stuff Ian!

Unable to vote as the options aren't quite right but my view from England;

The .com should be the international Google, no weighting on country specific domains/location nor on the users IP location.

Regional Google's, and yes they definately should be a .us, should give a "boost" to sites that belong in that region in addition to the filtering when the "pages from" option is checked. They really need to quit with the redirects though.

Just as an aside the US as a region is a touchy subject, ask the DMOZ guys about that one.

[mcanerin]

That is so strange - maybe they don't realize the benifits of regional search engines? I have a hard time believing they like off-topic spam....

Good thoughts, NFFC. No - I didn't know about the "US as region" issue in DMOZ - what is the issue?

Ian

[NFFC]

>what is the issue?

Lets not even go there! :)

[I'll pm you]

[mcanerin]

Got the PM with the link, thanks!

Wow - I'm not sure where to start, but that was a fascinating read, thank you.

I have to physically stop myself from typing a response to it :eek: so I'm going to turn off my computer and go sit in the dark for a while. You are right, it's probably not good material for the forum.

Ian

[You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to NFFC again.]

[Pyrrhonist]

I'd be interested in hearing about the issue as well. Perhaps you could post a summary in the forum? (or PM)

[Gurtie]

<listens to the sound of everyone scuttling off to dmoz to try and find the thread>

from where I'm sitting it's always appeared that the US consider .com to be the US domain name and the rest of us are only allowed to use it under sufference :rolleyes: It used to be somewhat that way in the UK - everyone wanted .coms but now they're realised that .co.uk's are actually a good option - but I haven't seen many .us sites around and I pretty much have the impression they'r still not considered desirable?

As an example mcdonalds.co.uk is there but mcdonalds.us appears to be under construction (although at least registered to them)

It would be great if some Americans could shout me down at this point but I doubt they will?

[Pyrrhonist]

It seems that i'm the lone dissenting opinion at this party. In all practicality, I don't think I want to teach my grandmother what .us meant - she can barely handle .com. In theory, utilizing the .us domain for its intended purpose would be great - we could put everyone in their own regional pools and just ditch the .com TLD completely (or 301 it to the corresponding .xxx domain cause that's 90% of the jumk out there anyway).

I like the IDEA of putting the US in their own little :) handing them a collective "Tonka"-brand notebook, and saying "play," but I don't think that the potential benefits would be worth the difficulties it would take to move the masses to regional searches.

Good idea... it's just 10 years too late.

[dannysullivan]

I'll shout, Gurtie, an American living in the UK.

Someone stop me, but I believe .com was originally supposed to be for a commercial site in the US. But to say others could use it only under sufferance is way wide of the mark. Pretty much anyone anywhere has been able to buy it for as long as I can remember. In contrast, trying to buy a country-specific domain for other countries can be very, very difficult. I think in France, for example, you have to show some real residence in the country.

We do have a .us domain. Doing things over, it would have been nice if that were promoted. But I think it came in after .com. Again, anyone correct me if I am wrong. Certainly many in the US have assumed that .com is the extension they should be using, thus its continued popularity.

The difficulty is that you can't depend on .com to mean anything. American sites use it. Global sites use it. UK sites use it. French sites use it.

Moreover, other country domains get diminished. Tuvalu as the .tv domain which is happily pitched to those well outside of that country :)

So using domains is pretty much a non-started. Heck, is that .xxx site in the US, UK or somewhere else, when that domain comes in.

What you can do is try to guess, which is what the search engines do now. Domain gives some indication -- and if Google were to ever have a Google US with weight given to .us domain, you can bet people would snap them up. But links from "known US" sites could be used just as they are used for the UK. Registration records could be used. Heck, here's a thought. We could maybe tell the search engines directly what country we're relevant for. Nah, that would never work!

Here's another reason to have a Google US. For one thing, when I search, I'd often actually like to see ads targeted at me, an American, regardless of where I'm at -- you know, without having to tack on &gl=us to my search string to make that happen.

[AussieWebmaster]

I'll shout, Gurtie, an American living in the UK.

Someone stop me, but I believe .com was originally supposed to be for a commercial site in the US. But to say others could use it only under sufferance is way wide of the mark. Pretty much anyone anywhere has been able to buy it for as long as I can remember. In contrast, trying to buy a country-specific domain for other countries can be very, very difficult. I think in France, for example, you have to show some real residence in the country.

We do have a .us domain. Doing things over, it would have been nice if that were promoted. But I think it came in after .com. Again, anyone correct me if I am wrong. Certainly many in the US have assumed that .com is the extension they should be using, thus its continued popularity.

The difficulty is that you can't depend on .com to mean anything. American sites use it. Global sites use it. UK sites use it. French sites use it.

Moreover, other country domains get diminished. Tuvalu as the .tv domain which is happily pitched to those well outside of that country :)

So using domains is pretty much a non-started. Heck, is that .xxx site in the US, UK or somewhere else, when that domain comes in.

What you can do is try to guess, which is what the search engines do now. Domain gives some indication -- and if Google were to ever have a Google US with weight given to .us domain, you can bet people would snap them up. But links from "known US" sites could be used just as they are used for the UK. Registration records could be used. Heck, here's a thought. We could maybe tell the search engines directly what country we're relevant for. Nah, that would never work!

Here's another reason to have a Google US. For one thing, when I search, I'd often actually like to see ads targeted at me, an American, regardless of where I'm at -- you know, without having to tack on &gl=us to my search string to make that happen. The recent intermixing of local and global results in ceratin countries seem to support the lessening of the .com hold.

In local national results the country domain and host are a major consideration.

[Jeff Martin]

Move to Google.us? Not likely. We Americans think the world needs to conform to us... for Pete's sake we refuse to be on the metric system.

[AussieWebmaster]

Move to Google.us? Not likely. We Americans think the world needs to conform to us... for Pete's sake we refuse to be on the metric system.
The funny thing is metric is easier once the initial hurdle is over.

[mcanerin]

Move to Google.us? Not likely. We Americans think the world needs to conform to us... for Pete's sake we refuse to be on the metric system.

As a scary sort of coincidence, that link NFFC sent me earier was about a DMOZ editor who insisted that the USA not be under North America, but rather considered it's own region/continent/etc. :eek:

That's just crazy talk. Everyone knows that Canada comprises most of North Americas landmass, and therefore the US should be a sub-catagory under us.... ;)

Ian

[Robert_Charlton]

Move to Google.us? Not likely. We Americans think the world needs to conform to us... for Pete's sake we refuse to be on the metric system.

And then, of course, there's the World Series, which for many years never left New York City.

I'm thinking that moving to a google.us could create as many problems for Canadians as it would solve. Wouldn't there be a loss of US traffic by some Canadian sites that are currently routinely seen on Google.com, or is the plan that everyone would have two sites... substantially different to avoid dupe content problems... one for .com and one for .ca or .us?

[Scottie]

I don't see that happening, as a practical matter simply because of the way the .com tld has grown and is currently in use. In a lot of ways it would appear to be a good gambit for the registrars to make more money, as people would now be urged to buy the .com AND the .us tld.

It would make a lot of sense though, as the average small to medium business puts up a website meant for local customers, to be able to narrow that region/search to make them more easily "findable" by their target customer. After all, if you offer wedding planning in Boise, traffic from a bride in New Zealand isn't very helpful.

Just for fun, you could take it a step further and offer state tlds! I certainly have some customers who would snap up a .sc or .nc domain- that would make it even easier for localized search to become a reality. I work extensively in a few industries where business names are often the same from state to state and in order to get that .com tld they add some creative dashes or extra letters in.

The question in my mind is how difficult a concept would that be for users? Do they actually arrive at most sites from searching, or do they often guess at a business name, or do they type it in off of business cards? If search is truly the primary navigation method, the tld shouldn't matter very much.

[Gurtie]

,us has only been around a couple of years I think, but historically I guess .com was meant to be commercial and since the US and the UK were probably the two main takers at the time it didn't seem an issue. I know 5 years ago clients wanted only .coms and now they all want .co.uk's - perhaps the .us will go that way but I suspect not.

Whatever the SE's do I just want to be able to go search for what I want where I want. It was getting really irritating a few months back when any search, even on .com, was returning me UK-centric results, drives you nutty when you're looking for gift to ship in the US and it keeps giving you .co.uk results, if .us would help with that then they should go for it I reckon, and make .com truly international.

Google.us wins on points btw, Yahoo.us isn't pointed at the homepage, MSN.us cannot be found and ask.us isn't even registered to them

[mcanerin]

I keep forgetting that I take this regionalization stuff for granted.

The VAST majority of Canadian sites (for example) are .coms, and yet Google.ca handles that just fine, and shows them just fine. For most searches, if I choose Canadian sites only, most of the results are .coms - but Canadian .coms!

Likewise, a Google.us would simply put more of an emphasis of .coms known to be American and (for example) less emphasis on .coms that are from Canada, UK and India.

It's not an evil plot to switch people over to the .us domain, it's an evil plot to actually show Americans sites that are intended to appeal to...umm..Americans....

Although you would be automatically assumed to be US if you have a .us, most .coms that are based in the US would also automatically be US as well, just like the .coms that are based in Canada (like my own site) are considered to be Canadian, etc.

In short, it's a free rankings boost for sites that are American, and absolutely no drawback for rankings on the .com version. It's not either/or. I optimize for Google.com and enjoy my free rankings boost on Google.ca and don't feel bad about it at all. ;)

Here is what I think - if an American searching for American products, services or information did a side-by-side comparision between google.com and google.us - I think that (assuming it worked the same way that the other regional Googles worked) they would find themselves very pleasantly surprised at the sudden change in relevance.

From Googles standpoint, wouldn't that be better than them going over to Yahoo, MSN or Teoma in search of that same relevance?

And from an SEO standpoint, why would you turn down a free rankings boost in a search aimed directly at your target market?

Honestly, I think if you tried it, you'd like it - a LOT.

Ian

[Scottie]

I'm not sure what I'd find in a .us search that would be different from what I see in a .com search- I typically get (as far as I know) American sites anyway. I haven't had any issues with finding myself unawares on a South African or Indian-based site... they are pretty much American sites. I would imagine they are already showing me regionalized searches, but maybe not.

What type of searches do you find to be more relevant, Ian?

[Jorge]

From the perspective of an international business a google.us can only increase costs and complicate reaching the US market for non US businesses. Depending on what you sell (if in fact you sell anything) you may be of the kind that takes advantage of the global capabilities of the web. You can set up one virtual store and cater to the entire planet. If you are penalized for not being physically in the US in the SERPs then you have to find your way around the problem. The end result is the same. As Danny says other countries are tough with their domains. For me to have a .fr domain I had to shell out a few Euros, find a french citizen to put the domain under his name, etc... I am well positioned in google.fr now...but it cost me more. Anyone could do the same for the hypothetical google.us. It is impossible to limit the results to truly US sites (and why would you want to?). It would increase costs as I said unnecessarily in my opinion. Jorge

[Marketing Guy]

The way I was taught it, the .com TLD is like postage stamps. US sites don't use .co.us because the standards were derived in the US. In the same respect, the UK is the only country in the world who doesn't put the country name on stamps (which are a British invention).

There would be a huge amount of consumer education required to start shifting US only sites to .us domains, but I do think Google.com should be focusing on an international audience and not an US one.

ask.us

Would have thought that would have been a great branding move! ;)

MG

[PaulH]

Often wondered why Americans put up with intentional results. This issue forced me to use geo targeting, despite having a .co.uk on a UK IP i was getting hoards of emails off Americans saying they can’t call our phone number(the nice big British flag, H1 tag saying "UK only", and FAQ was too subtle). On the plus side i now sell them affiliate tat. Maybe this is why Google is more popular in Europe.

[bragadocchio]

.us has only been around a couple of years I think, but historically I guess .com was meant to be commercial and since the US and the UK were probably the two main takers at the time it didn't seem an issue.

I don't think the age or timing has too much to do with the use of .com versus .us. The .us tld has been around since sometime in 1988. The .com was from around three years earlier in 1985, as was the .uk.

I think that you are right that when given the option between a .com and a .us, most Americans who created sites with a .com did do so with the understanding that a .com address was for a commercial site. The message about whether the scope of the site being regional or global probably didn't enter into the picture much.

There was no sense of entitlement involved. It was, and often is, presented in the US as the preferred address for someone engaged in commercial activities. And the commercial aspect of a .com even gets clouded sometimes in the way that people are presented with options for chosing a tld in the US. The way that Internic (http://www.internic.net/faqs/domain-names.html) presents the cctld's makes them look like a less desireable option.

I came across a surgeon's site in the US recently with the country code for Moldova. I don't think that there was any intention of catering to the people of Moldova. Rather, the person choosing the name may have liked the look of the .md at the end of the web address.

[ephricon]

Move to Google.us? Not likely. We Americans think the world needs to conform to us... for Pete's sake we refuse to be on the metric system.

Some questions:


What's the metric system?
For that matter, what is this "Canada" thing everyone keeps talking about?
The internet is international? Is that why you guys sometimes spell color (colour) and optimization (optimisation) wrong?


Hahaha, but seriously that's the point. The average American internet user equates .com with website. As for all the other domains, they are clearly inferior.

I, as an American living in the US who is completely ignorant and not in any way knowledgable of any culture other than my own, will tell you that when I see any website with a domain other than .com my initial assumption is that the site probably couldn't get the .com extension and "had to settle" for the alternative. The only exceptions here in my mind are .org, .edu, .gov and possibly .mil.

A while back I wanted to register my name as a domain. www.myname.com was already taken. I was crushed. I settled on www.myname.net and never once gave a thought about www.myname.us as to me, a typical American, that just looked tacky and inferior.

If when I searched I found that 75% of the .com sites I'm finding are based in another country than maybe I'd care - but that's not the case. I'd say maybe 3% of the time, if that, do I happen upon a .com that is not US-based without expecting that to be the case.

To me its a nice idea, but they missed the boat. Even if you take Ian's suggestion about not hurting any .com sites and using both them and .us in Google.us - I don't think it would really matter. The five people per day who used Google.us over Google.com probably wouldn't notice much of a swing in their results, as 90% of the sites I currently get back are .com (and not something like .co.uk) anyways.

[Jeff Martin]

The average American internet user equates .com with website. As for all the other domains, they are clearly inferior.
This is the main issue here I think. We just now have the majority of web users realizing what a .com is (or at least supposed to be).

There is a perception about non .com sites, a perception of inferiority. The probable exceptions to that perception are .edu and .org sites; of course these domain extensions have been around a long while.

I know that, even in today's internet, if I had a serious web venture in place that was setup to be revenue generating that I would make .com my main site address. Then I'd simply buy up the other domains to prevent spamming or deceptive practices of scrappers/imitators.

[Pyrrhonist]

Move to Google.us? Not likely. We Americans think the world needs to conform to us... for Pete's sake we refuse to be on the metric system.

LOL - I refrained from bringing up the metric system issue, but that was the central thought behind my previous post.

[ephricon]

...Maybe this is why Google is more popular in Europe.

Is it really? Its hard to imagine how Google could be more popular that it already is here (US). IMO most of the search traffic Yahoo and MSN get are not people visiting for their search engine, but rather those already on those sites that then desire to do a search. For example, I'm checking my email or sports scores or tv listings via MyYahoo, and in checking a sports score I now want to look up a player that was mentioned...

With MSN they are set as the default page quite often via their browser penetration, and they also are a rather helpful news site. I, in fact, have my default page set as MSN since I like their balance of "real news" and interesting stories and such.

Other than that I really have yet to meet someone who uses Yahoo or MSN purely for the search. I even give the occasional lecture at a local college/university and I don't think I've ever had one of the students raise their hand as MSN or Yahoo being their true prefered engine. Sure I've seen the larger studies, but in my experience Google's share here in the US is pretty dominant already.

[Jorge]

Only in the US are non .com sites perceived as inferior, and even that is not true due to the exceptions (.gov, .edu etc...). Ask anyone in the UK (.co.uk), in France with the .fr, Spain's .es, Italy, Germany...


To me its a nice idea, but they missed the boat. Even if you take Ian's suggestion about not hurting any .com sites and using both them and .us in Google.us - I don't think it would really matter. The five people per day who used Google.us over Google.com probably wouldn't notice much of a swing in their results, as 90% of the sites I currently get back are .com (and not something like .co.uk) anyways.

That is the point. Google.com gives you .com results. Google.co.uk gives you .co.uk results, same in the rest of the googles. If there were a Google.us it should give you American .us results.





If when I searched I found that 75% of the .com sites I'm finding are based in another country than maybe I'd care - but that's not the case. I'd say maybe 3% of the time, if that, do I happen upon a .com that is not US-based without expecting that to be the case.

I don't have the numbers but I would think there are a LOT more non US sites with a .com domain than 3%. When I say non-US I mean a site representing a company that is not American. Not the hosting, as the US hosts a great part of the worlds web sites. Anyone has the numbers by the way? You would be surprised as to how many sites you think are American are actually not.

[Jeff Martin]

but in my experience Google's share here in the US is pretty dominant already. As a matter of fact, Verizon I believe had a commerical on a couple of nights ago (in the US) and they were discussing their web capabilities for their cell phones. While showing their phone Google's home page popped up.

So now we have television advertisers including Google in their commercials.

[Jorge]

Google is VERY dominant in Europe. More than in the US. You said it, Americans use different search engines for different purposes. As far as I know in Europe Google is the absolute king.

[Jeff Martin]

I don't have the numbers but I would think there are a LOT more non US sites with a .com domain than 3%.
That may very well be true. However,who is going to teach users to search this way? Many users are still searching using one and two word general phrases and are suprised when they dont get the results they were after.

How about this, why dont the SEs launch a campaign to teach people how to use the search engines? For Pete's sake 'Google' is now a verb...and the SEs play a fundemental and crucial role in helping people find what they are after in the endless space of the internet. They are making billions, imagine how much more money they could possibly make if people knew how to fully use an SE.

This is where our industry could evolve - end users become educated in how to find what they are looking for, for example using longer phrases, trying to be more specific in their desires. Instead of 'widgets' they search for 'red long widgets in dallas'.

It would be more profitable to be more precise in your SEO as your visitors would be using narrower searches to find you. Arent your narrower search users converting better? Mine do.

It seems it would be in the SE's best interest to educate rather than having users try other engines.

[Jorge]

I completely agree with you. But as you know people will not learn how to search unless it becomes a mandatory class in grade school or high school.

Specific search terms are indeed always better. A real search term in my logs that converted to a sale: "I want to buy company A's widget". Can't get better than that. ;-)

Instead of having a .us domain I think the already available "local" link is much better and serves the purpose of a .US domain even better actually as you can specify your city or state. I wouldn't mind that feature in other country specific googles.

[Pyrrhonist]

On other thing they've have to consider before going to google.us is webmasters. I find it hard to believe that US-based commerce sites (the documented purpose behind the .com TLD) would give up their properties to move to a .us. Sure, they might create an additional domain and forward one to the other, but can you see Dell picking up shop and moving from dell.com to dell.us to keep Google happy?

lthough .com domains have always been intended for commercial use, they are currently available for anyone to register. In the 1990s, .com became the most common top-level domain for websites, especially commercial ones, and gave its name to dot-com companies. (fn 1)

Being that .com is registerd and was maintained by an US organization (the original holder was DARPA (fn 2)), IMHO it stands to reason that the intention was for US-based commerce.


fn 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.com
fn 2: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc920.txt

[TilmannBruckhaus]

I expect that future search engines will provide personalization capabilities which will make it unnecessary to go to country-specific search tools. The search engine will know which user is interested in results from which country or region, based on previous search behavior.

[mcanerin]

...when I see any website with a domain other than .com my initial assumption is that the site probably couldn't get the .com extension and "had to settle" for the alternative.

Actually, Canada had that problem too. I keep bringing them up because 1) I'm familiar with them, and 2) we are so close to the US in terms of proximity and culture that it's probably the closest comparision.

When the .ca was first brought out, no one wanted them. After all, wasn't the internet supposed to be international? Why would you start a website and then restrict yourself? Additionally, there was definitely a perception of .ca as an "also ran" second choice if you could not get the .com.

Not to mention the very real problem that if you cater to an international audience but use a regional tld, you may be overlooked by potential clients who may be turned off from using a website that may not be intended to cater to them.

Finally, there was the very real problem of people automatically typing in .com at the end of domains, which could result in someone landing on your competitor after you sent all the time selling your concept to them over the radio, or whatever.

This list of negatives is very real, but it turns out, not very important.

.com is the standard, and always will be, that I can see. There is no difference between settling for a .net and a .us - the exact same objections and issues apply to both.

But in practice what ended up happening was that most websites used the .com, but a lot started to use the .ca, and in a very short time the public here got used to the idea.

Here is the really interesting thing: once people got used to the idea, it turns out that they accepted that sites with an essentially local focus (ie law firms, etc) would often use the .ca and companies with an international focus would use the .com - and the .ca became an alternate standard - now it's the .net that's the odd one out. very few people want them. There is a place in the world for cc tld's, for .com, .org and .edu, but the idea behind .net was to only be for purely technical nodes like webservers, etc. In short it was a specialist TLD for geeks.

But since it's rarely used that way, it's now the "also ran" and people tend to focus on .com or .ca as the standard for business and .org for non-profits.

One thing that needs to be stressed here is that google.us does NOT mean you need to give up your beloved .com, or go out and get a .us - the two are completely separate issues.

As an example for relevency, type in a search for something like "SEO" and look at how many non-US sites show up in the top 30. This is the leading edge of an international storm. The storm is on it's way and it's way too late to stop it.

Some of the best SEO's in the world are in the UK, and some of the most prolific linkers are in places like India, China and eastern Europe, where the people-power necessary to do it is currently cheap in comparision. It's a very short matter of time before the US dominance of the .com SERPs is gone - and there will be no fall back position.

Everything is always fine and perfectly safe until the bomb actually lands and explodes. It's even safe when it's still a foot above the ground. But I respectfully suggest that it's a good idea to start moving before it arrives, not afterward.

It's not that it's bad for non-US sites to show up in Google.com - that's actually proper behaviour for an international site. On a global scale, it's relevant. But on a local scale, it's not.

I'm wondering how much of the complaining about Google's increasing lack of relevance has to do with Googles increasing globalization of it's SERPs. Sometimes it's not a lack of relevance - it's a lack of focus on a local user.

The easiest and least intrusive form of personalization that a search engine can offer is a regional portal. Almost everything else requires some sort of big brother being involved.

This doesn't apply only to Google, but also Yahoo, MSN and Ask - as a matter of fact, I think the ability for Americans to choose a virtual "Made in America" product or service is a good thing.

I freely admit to having a bias here - I'm aware from personal experience the benifits of a regional SE, and frankly I'm just trying to make my life easier when I'm working in the States (my company is a US taxpayer, for example). My concern is that this is one of those things you don't really understand the value of until you experience it personally - ironically, the people it's most applicable to are the ones least qualified to judge it's value.

How many people who think that there would be no real value in a google.us also were not convinced there would be value in that "internet thing". Bunch of geeks connecting - bah! I don't mind walking to the bank - it's good exercise...

I think that you should think about the fact that not one person with actual experience using a regional engine is questioning it's value in this thread - only those who haven't tried it can't see the value - kind of like broadband access instead of dial-up . ;)

Ian

[Jorge]

One person can have different personal preferences. One day he/she may want local results, tomorrow global, another industry specific ... Personalization may be good but I don't think it is the future, also there is the use of all that information by the search engines.

[ephricon]

Google is VERY dominant in Europe. More than in the US. You said it, Americans use different search engines for different purposes. As far as I know in Europe Google is the absolute king.

Actually what I was saying was quite the opposite. My whole point was that very few people use different search engines here, but rather they typically only tend to use those sites as search engines when they already happen to be on those sites for other non-search related uses. IMO Yahoo Search would not survive at all in the US were it not for Yahoo's other service offerings. I believe that's why Google is getting more into the portal business - to take away that bit of search traffic from Yahoo.

[ephricon]

Only in the US are non .com sites perceived as inferior, and even that is not true due to the exceptions (.gov, .edu etc...). Ask anyone in the UK (.co.uk), in France with the .fr, Spain's .es, Italy, Germany...

Yes, you've made my point for me. To my understanding the point of this thread is to analyze whether there should be a Google.us or not. As such, the main discussion has been the differences in serving American internet users vs. those in other countries. Thus, as my post was to explain how insignificant the .us extension is in the US - and why this being a significant factor in differentiating between Google.com and Google.us would be pointless. Americans haven't accepted .us in the same way other countries have accepted other domain extensions. It may work very nicely elsewhere, b/c there are good sites with those extensions. Here there are very very few reputable and established businesses with .us as their primary domain.


That is the point. Google.com gives you .com results. Google.co.uk gives you .co.uk results, same in the rest of the googles. If there were a Google.us it should give you American .us results.

But .com sites already are American results :) I really don't mean to sound cocky here but it helps to make my point. I very rarely have the problem of finding a site based in another country that I wasn't expecting. Sure it may happen occasionally, but overall this is not a problem for most.



I don't have the numbers but I would think there are a LOT more non US sites with a .com domain than 3%. When I say non-US I mean a site representing a company that is not American. Not the hosting, as the US hosts a great part of the worlds web sites.

I agree with you here. What I meant was that maybe only 3% of those sites that I visit via searches are not what I want b/c they are based in another country. This merely illustrates that its not a big problem in the US - the average US internet user isn't frustrated beyond belief from finding sites from other countries. Thus, the benefit to be obtained is very small. I can understand how this would be helpful in other countries, especially those where a relatively low number of potentially matching resulting sites are actually of companies based in that country.

Personally I think if you pole the average American internet user or even the "average" American SEO you'll find that they would compain about several other relevancy issues with Google before they would complain about constantly finding sites from other countries when that's not what they were looking for.

[PhilC]

And then, of course, there's the World Series, which for many years never left New York City.The World Series had and has nothing to do with geography. It was named after the newspaper (The World) that either originally sponsorerd it or created it. It's not a world championship. I thought everyone knew that ;)

I suspect that the U.S. people here are unaware of the way that regional Googles work. E.g:-

The five people per day who used Google.us over Google.com ....Regional Google users are offered a choice of world or regional results, and a great many people choose the regional results - perhaps most people. Also, when in the .com, we are offered the choice of going to the regional Google. So a *lot* of people would use a regional Google for the U.S.

The choice of TLDs for websites doesn't make any difference. If a site is hosted in the region, it qualifies for inclusion in the region's Google listings. E.g. I have a .net site which was ranked very highly in the UK results, but vanished from them as soon as I moved it to a U.S. host.

So, all in all, I do think that U.S. people are missing out by having their only choice of Google results mixed with the rest of the world's websites.

For those people who imagine that the vast majority of .coms are U.S. sites, you are very much mistaken.

This isn't on-topic, but it's had a good deal of discussion in the thread already so:- when I started on the web in 1997, I really didn't want a .co.uk domain because everyone had .coms and it seemed natural for people to remember to add .com to a domain name when typing it into a browser. That was desirable to me, and I guess it was for most website owners. But because of local sites advertising their .co.uk domains on TV, .co.uk became just as acceptable. If U.S. sites did the same sort of advertising, then I'm sure that the .us domains would become just as acceptable. In other words, I don't think it is too late. But a website's choice of TLD makes no difference to its inclusion in the regional results, as long as it is hosted in the region.

[ephricon]

The choice of TLDs for websites doesn't make any difference. If a site is hosted in the region, it qualifies for inclusion in the region's Google listings. E.g. I have a .net site which was ranked very highly in the UK results, but vanished from them as soon as I moved it to a U.S. host.

So, all in all, I do think that U.S. people are missing out by having their only choice of Google results mixed with the rest of the world's websites.

So long as the domain extensions are not a significant factor and hypothetically if there's no negative effect on relevancy that I won't argue that this is a "bad" idea. Clearly its not.

However, my entire point here is that its not needed or wanted. There is no problem. Google.co.uk may exist because the .com results for the average UK user may not be relevant. I do not feel the American user sees the .com results as problematic or irrelevant b/c of the geography issue.

I don't think you can convince the average US user to do anything different until you convince them that the regular Google.com results are not good enough. Until you do this, I don't think you'll get any adoption on Google.us or will you even get them to simply click another link to view regional results. Why should they? The results they have are fine in their minds. This is why local search, which I personally do love, has not completely triumphed over the boring general search.

[Gurtie]

But in practice what ended up happening was that most websites used the .com, but a lot started to use the .ca, and in a very short time the public here got used to the idea.
ditto here - most companies register both .com and .co.uk but nowadays if you're based in the UK and you sell to primarily UK people then its most common to publicise your .co.uk domain

The search engine will know which user is interested in results from which country or region, based on previous search behavior. I really hope not. My search behaviour yesterday is no definition of what I want to find today. Research and travel aren't helped by some server somewhere deciding I only want to know about things within 50 miles...

[PhilC]

But the google.com results *are* spoiled by worldwide sites, ephricon. I know - I've been at the top of them for years with UK specific pages. I don't think you can say that the average U.S. user won't use a google.us site because s/he doesn't see a need for it. Give them the choice and then watch what happens. People are pretty much the same the world over - if there's a way that's better for us, we'll take it. People will choose the results that offer only the things they are looking for, without a load of other stuff mixed in.

[Pyrrhonist]

Actually, Canada had that problem too. I keep bringing them up because 1) I'm familiar with them, and 2) we are so close to the US in terms of proximity and culture that it's probably the closest comparision.
I'm Canadian as well, mcanerin (moved to the US 6 months ago), and am using my experiences with google.ca as a reference point.

When I was living in Canada, I found that I always perfomed searches through the two ways I could access google.com (and not .ca) from home - setting the preferred google local site through the toolbar, or in F-fox. I don't know if google handles redirections any differently in eastern Canada, but on the west coast if I typed "www.google.com" into my address bar, i was always redirected to "http://www.google. ca." This is something that I definitely find to be quite an annoyance. Most of my searches are informational in nature and receiving results with the most global relevence is important to me and the majority of my remaining searches are usually to do with clients - most of whom are in US.

But in practice what ended up happening was that most websites used the .com, but a lot started to use the .ca, and in a very short time the public here got used to the idea.
I'm not sure if I agree with you entirely on this. Most (80% or so) of the companies I work with would always take a .com domain before a .ca. The domains may have reached more acceptance, I think they're still second-class citizens.

As an example for relevency, type in a search for something like "SEO" and look at how many non-US sites show up in the top 30. This is the leading edge of an international storm. The storm is on it's way and it's way too late to stop it.
...
Some of the best SEO's in the world are in the UK, and some of the most prolific linkers are in places like India, China and eastern Europe, where the people-power necessary to do it is currently cheap in comparision. It's a very short matter of time before the US dominance of the .com SERPs is gone - and there will be no fall back position.
Adopting the .us option as a protectionist reaction to competing foreign markets is just another stopgap between .com and being overrun. If we can't compete with Asian SEO shops, then we need to figure out how. The long-term solution has to be soemthing else, not giving up the .com namespace and running away. If what you say is true, then savy businesses will merely search google.co.uk, or google.com.cn to find their SEO companies in the future. Although I don't have the solution, and I don't pretend to know what it is, but as you conceed, .com is the king, and won't be dethroned any time in the future.

A quick side-note on our UK friends. One of the points in which I agree whole-heartedly is in the quality of SEOs in the UK. I work closely with a UK outfit on an almost daily basis, and relish every opportunity to butt heads with him and both of us usually walk away with a slightly different outlook.
Everything is always fine and perfectly safe until the bomb actually lands and explodes. It's even safe when it's still a foot above the ground. But I respectfully suggest that it's a good idea to start moving before it arrives, not afterward.
Think of ourselves as the diplomats on the Internet - it's our job to make sure that the bomb never comes.

The easiest and least intrusive form of personalization that a search engine can offer is a regional portal. Almost everything else requires some sort of big brother being involved.
A radio button giving an option to search all or search US would suffice for this task - without making people switch over to a new portal and the inevitable confusion that would result.

I think that you should think about the fact that not one person with actual experience using a regional engine is questioning it's value in this thread - only those who haven't tried it can't see the value - kind of like broadband access instead of dial-up . ;)
As I said above, this is not entirely true. I'm Canadian and lived in Canada for over 20 years before moving last autumn.

[Jorge]

For me searching in google.com means "look everywhere and anywhere", and since I can always go local, a google.us becomes unnecessary. And I believe the same is true for the rest of the country specific googles. If you think about it the only option Americans don't have is the "search in English only", and "only US results" as the rest of the countries have.

As for the domain issue: Well not always. I have a .co.uk domain doing well in google.co.uk that is hosted in the US. Same for the rest of my country specific domains.

I basically agree with you ephricon. I do believe though that when people look for information they do not always care necessarily what country that information is coming from as long as it is in their own language, that is that I don't think international sites are affecting the quality of SERPs.

[ephricon]

But the google.com results *are* spoiled by worldwide sites, ephricon. I know - I've been at the top of them for years with UK specific pages.

I agree. What I'm saying is its not a big enough of an issue for the average US user to notice, or care. Not enough to do something different anyways.

Lets keep in mind everyone that most searches aren't for lots of the things we optimize for - most searches aren't commercial in nature, and fall on relatively lesser-competitive SERPs b/c the monetary rewards for optimization and high rankings in many of those cases are much less.

I don't think you can say that the average U.S. user won't use a google.us site because s/he doesn't see a need for it. Give them the choice and then watch what happens. People are pretty much the same the world over - if there's a way that's better for us, we'll take it. People will choose the results that offer only the things they are looking for, without a load of other stuff mixed in.

I disagree. I do think I can say that is the case. I used to be the "average" US internet user and virtually all my friends and associates fall right into that category. People WILL change if you can convince them there's a good reason to. If not, they won't. I think that in many cases its going to be hard to show that improved relevance. To me this fits with the classic marketing studies - people will change their brand or behavior if you make a compelling case to do so. If you don't, or if you only make a weak case that one is better, or is only marginally better they won't react.

Example... I like Coke better than Pepsi. But I buy Pepsi. Why the heck would I do something like that? Honestly I don't know, but I do it over and over and over again. I keep buying Pepsi when I actually prefer Coke. It can probably be traced back to some ad campaign or something that made me think Pepsi was cooler, but really I just keep buying it b/c that's what I've always bought - and even though I do like Coke better (slightly), the difference is not enough for me to alter my behavior.

I think alot of our non-US-located friends may be relating their preference for their regional Google vs. Google.com. That's fine - I'm not commenting on that. What about other US users? What do you guys think? Do you think the average internet user is annoyed enough about this regionalization issue to alter their search behavior?

My stance in summary:

- Could a Google.us produce more relevant results? Sure, so long as they use the right criteria and weight it effectively.

- Would the average US internet user choose regional search vs. what is now their norm? Possibly some would, sure. Perhaps many if the "choice" was presented the right way.

- Will the average (I stress average) US internet user type in Google.us to conduct the majority of their searches? IMO - no chance. They'd have to force me there automatically.

I can't even think of ONE mainstream US website that I KNOW OF that uses .us. Sure there are lots of them, but they are not the ones we know and use every day. Why would we adopt this suddenly for Google?

I'd bet that if you surveyed average US internet users with a Yes/No question - Is .us a valid domain name extension (such as .com, org)? most of them would say no. That extension has no visibility here.

[PhilC]

I still say that neither you nor anyone else is able to speak for the average U.S. user, ephricon. In order to that, you'd need to have conducted a pretty extensive poll. So I'll assume your views to be specific to you if you don't mind,

Your changing brands example (Coke and Pepsi) isn't a good parallel, and your discussion is based around getting people to change, whereas it isn't being suggested that anyone changes brand, or even necessarily change from typing in google.com. What I'm saying is that, if people in the U.S. are given the choice between world results, and U.S. only results, then many, and even most, of them will use the U.S. only results when they are looking for something that's U.S. specific.

It's just my opinion, as yours is your opinion, but at least my opinion is based on the experience of having a regional Google here. Personally, I use .com by default because I'm rarely looking for UK specific things, but I use .co.uk when I am looking for UK specific things. I would agree that the difference in the results is greater outside the U.S., but there is a difference over there, and truly, U.S. people are missing out.

I can't even think of ONE mainstream US website that I KNOW OF that uses .us. Sure there are lots of them, but they are not the ones we know and use every day. Why would we adopt this suddenly for Google?Don't get sidetracked with .us domains. They have nothing to do with it. You are not understanding the way it works in practise concerning regional Googles. I always go to google.com, where I'm offered the choice of going to google.co.uk if I want to. I never type in google.co.uk. So you see, it's not a case of people changing anything they already do. It's a case sticking with the same brand, but having the region specific results available if they are wanted.

[Pyrrhonist]

I still say that neither you nor anyone else is able to speak for the average U.S. user, ephricon. In order to that, you'd need to have conducted a pretty extensive poll. So I'll assume your views to be specific to you if you don't mind
The same goes for us all. We're all here speaking in assumptions based upon personal experience, and for one to call down another's credibility on an obvious assumption isn't really fair, is it? I am not an American, you are not an American - if it comes right down to it ephricon probably has a better idea of how the average American behaves than either of us do. That said, your point about none of us performing the research required to gauge how the "average" american would search is fair. On the other hand, the words "google" and ".com" have both entered modern lexicon and are usually used hand-in-hand. .us doesn't have nearly the same brand power - which is what i think ephricon was attempting to get at in his previous post.

Now, although I'm not American, I have had the opportunity to live on both sides of the 49th parallel (US/Canada border runs along this line) and experienced both domestic (regional really isn't the right word for this, is it?) and the way that Google does it in the US. And I, for one, prefer the way that searches are performed down here to the way that Google redirects you to google.ca in Canada.

[mcanerin]

I, for one, prefer the way that searches are performed down here to the way that Google redirects you to google.ca in Canada.
And yet, I'm a Canadian who has worked and lived in both the US and Canada, currently live in Canada but run a US company and have almost all US clients and I'm saying the exact opposite :)

Go to www.ibm.com. You will be redirected to ibm.com/us - evilly and against your will. Bad service? Is moral outrage appropriate? No - ibm.com is the international site and ibm.com/us is the US specific site. Is this a bad idea? Do you demand to be taken back to the main site because you don't want US results? Of course not (unless you are not from the US).

I use google.com because I'm an SEO and I optimize based on the international standard. But I was recently a speaker at the Toronto SES and did an impromptue poll of the audience - First, I asked how many were Canadian, then I asked how many of them used google.ca rather than google.com. To my surprise (and the surprise of my fellow panelists) the vast majority of the room preferred google.ca - and these were SES attendees!

Here is what would happen (presumably - I'm not a Google programmer - snakes (especially pythons) scare me).

You would (just like me) type in Google.com out of habit. Google would realize that you are in the US and automatically take you to the US Google. The only change to the user would be that there is now a little button that says "Search Pages From the US" as an option, and US websites are given a little more priority over non-US ones.

If you didn't want that, you could set your default to google.com, or simply hit the "go to Google.com" link on the home page. But most people would not care. They would type in Google.com and then search in the resulting box. They would not obsess over the fact that the TLD changed (most websites today change the URL you type in - ibm.com going to ibm.com/us being an example)

In short, there is no need to have to figure out how many liters make a quart, or to remember to type in .us, or to answer nosy questions about your likes and dislikes - you simply type in Google.com and do a search, and suddenly the results are better. :)

Ian

[Pyrrhonist]

And yet, I'm a Canadian who has worked and lived in both the US and Canada, currently live in Canada but run a US company and have almost all US clients and I'm saying the exact opposite :)
Maybe I've been here too long cause I'm not sure whether to go for a beer next time I'm home or drop an "Invading Asian SEO Bomb" on you :)

Go to www.ibm.com. You will be redirected to ibm.com/us - evilly and against your will. Bad service? Is moral outrage appropriate? No - ibm.com is the international site and ibm.com/us is the US specific site. Is this a bad idea? Do you demand to be taken back to the main site because you don't want US results? Of course not (unless you are not from the US).
I see where you're going here, and I agree to a sense. However, relating back to your original argument, should IBM not forward you to ibm.us if you're in the US? After all, the US is a region too, right?

The answer (hopefully) is no - ibm.com is the internet domain, and they are trying to cater their products to domestic considerations by performing the redirection. I made a recommendation in an earlier post that google should offer the same "search US" and "search the world" (I can't remember the exact phrasing) on the google.com portal and leave it at that.


You would (just like me) type in Google.com out of habit. Google would realize that you are in the US and automatically take you to the US Google. The only change to the user would be that there is now a little button that says "Search Pages From the US" as an option, and US websites are given a little more priority over non-US ones.
At this point - I'm starting to think that we're both on the same page about what the result should be and that we just have different ideas on the way to go about it.


In short, there is no need to have to figure out how many liters make a quart, or to remember to type in .us, or to answer nosy questions about your likes and dislikes - you simply type in Google.com and do a search, and suddenly the results are better. :)
Isn't the default selection in google.ca to search all of google - not pages from canada?

Edit: Oh yeah - I still get confused at the grocery store deli when they don't know what 350 grams of roast beef is. (and it's 4 litres of milk - not a gallon)

[mcanerin]

Isn't the default selection in google.ca to search all of google - not pages from canada?

Yes, but we've noticed that Canadian sites still get a boost in google.ca - the button basically puts non canuck sites at the bottom, where the default behavior is to give a boost to canuck sites but still allow for a very relevant non-canuck site to show up well (even number one).

Maybe I've been here too long cause I'm not sure whether to go for a beer next time I'm home or drop an "Invading Asian SEO Bomb" on you

<grin> Don't get me started about Walmart and McDonalds here in Canada - fair is fair, and I think the US is getting the better deal, quality-wise ;)

I see where you're going here, and I agree to a sense. However, relating back to your original argument, should IBM not forward you to ibm.us if you're in the US?

you are right, the answer is no, IMO. The use of the .us domain is simply a shortcut, not a requirement. From a search engine standpoint there is little difference between a sub-domain dedicated to an area (or language) or a separate domain. There are a few gotchas, but, for example, if you type in yahoo.ca you will end up at ca.yahoo.com, which is also a perfectly acceptable option. So would us.google.com. The point isn't the domain extension, the point is the results.

I suggested the .us because it would be consistent with other regional versions. If it's not as scary, then I'd be perfectly happy with us.google.com, or www.google.com/us - as long as I could get US relevent results when I wanted to. Thats the goal, the rest is just details.

Ian

[PhilC]

I'm sorry if it read like I was calling down another's credibility on an obvious assumption, Pyrrhonist. I wasn't really trying to be too negative. ephricon did say what the average American would do, and I stated the obvious assumption because, imo, it doesn't help a discussion when somebody tries to speak for everyone - or for such a big group, anyway. I don't want to be negative, but I do think it was right to say it. Sorry if you didn't care for it.

[Pyrrhonist]

I suggested the .us because it would be consistent with other regional versions. If it's not as scary, then I'd be perfectly happy with us.google.com, or www.google.com/us - as long as I could get US relevent results when I wanted to. Thats the goal, the rest is just details.

Ok - I agree with the theory (grrr, I hate saying that). I think the way we would choose to implement these details is where we differ, and I can handle that :)

[Pyrrhonist]

I'm sorry if it read like I was calling down another's credibility on an obvious assumption, Pyrrhonist. I wasn't really trying to be too negative. ephricon did say what the average American would do, and I stated the obvious assumption because, imo, it doesn't help a discussion when somebody tries to speak for everyone - or for such a big group, anyway. I don't want to be negative, but I do think it was right to say it. Sorry if you didn't care for it.
Sorry Phil,

I wasn't trying to call you down or point you out for any wrong doing. I'm waaay too young in this forum to be doing that to people. I was merely observing the irony of the comment.

And what do you think you're doing listening to me, Phil? I just broke the 10 post barrier!!

You're right about people speaking for everyone, though. There's always exceptions to every rule. We need a filter that adds "IMHO" to the end of every sentence :)

(ok, this is enough huggy posts for me today :))

[PhilC]

Everyone had 10 posts, and less, at one time. It doesn't have bearing on whether or not they know anything, and it doesn't make their views and opinions any less valid than anyone else's :)

[mcanerin]

WAIT!

I just realized that a side effect of this would be that Americans would get a boost at the expense of us poor Canadians, thus severely hampering our attempts at taking over that small but warm chuck of real estate to the south.

Never mind. Regional results messes with my world domination plans. As you were. Forget I said anything. Nothing here to see. Go away.

Ian ;)

[Pyrrhonist]

WAIT!

I just realized that a side effect of this would be that Americans would get a boost at the expense of us poor Canadians, thus severely hampering our attempts at taking over that small but warm chuck of real estate to the south.

Never mind. Regional results messes with my world domination plans. As you were. Forget I said anything. Nothing here to see. Go away.

Ian ;)
You don't want this small chunk of land, Ian. You know that whole thing about snowbirds coming down to FL in the winter to escape the cold? They lied - the real reason is just so they can get away from this God-awful humidity in the summer.

[ephricon]

Your changing brands example (Coke and Pepsi) isn't a good parallel, and your discussion is based around getting people to change, whereas it isn't being suggested that anyone changes brand, or even necessarily change from typing in google.com. What I'm saying is that, if people in the U.S. are given the choice between world results, and U.S. only results, then many, and even most, of them will use the U.S. only results when they are looking for something that's U.S. specific.

It's just my opinion, as yours is your opinion, but at least my opinion is based on the experience of having a regional Google here. Personally, I use .com by default because I'm rarely looking for UK specific things, but I use .co.uk when I am looking for UK specific things. I would agree that the difference in the results is greater outside the U.S., but there is a difference over there, and truly, U.S. people are missing out.


See that's the whole point though. You said you use .co.uk when you are looking for UK specific things. Americans don't look for US-specific things. We look for things, and assume everything is US-specific. Its a different mindset we operate under.

*** Formal Disclaimer: The preceding opinion is indeed not citing a specific scientific study that I conducted immediately prior to this post, but rather is a general opinion based upon the fact that I seem to be the only fully immersed American Internet User left in this discussion. It is an amazing generalization, but hey I figure an American generalizing about how Americans think when searching is as good or better than a non-American generalizing about American search behavior. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know jack about search behavior outside the US borders, b/c frankly, my American mindset hardly recognizes there is anything outside the US borders unless I'm watching CNN. ***


Don't get sidetracked with .us domains. They have nothing to do with it. You are not understanding the way it works in practise concerning regional Googles. I always go to google.com, where I'm offered the choice of going to google.co.uk if I want to. I never type in google.co.uk. So you see, it's not a case of people changing anything they already do. It's a case sticking with the same brand, but having the region specific results available if they are wanted.

Our .us vs .com discussion was a sort of sub-discussion in the thread here - one that I particularly found interesting and I suppose it could take the form of a seperate thread discussion.

Now regarding the process... I could argue that you still want someone to click something which is not part of their current process... I'd have to see how its implemented and I'll concede that so long as we're not asking the user to do anything different than it might be okay. I think to comment any further is probably just further speculating about the implementation of an idea that would be handled by someone other than I - and thus until we actually know 1) if they were going to do anything and 2) how they would implement it. There are ways they could do it that I think would be making a mistake, and certainly there are ways so as to offer better results and not make the user change their behavior much if any. We simply don't have enough to debate on the implementation of this until we actually see it, as there are so many ways to go with this.


The same goes for us all. We're all here speaking in assumptions based upon personal experience, and for one to call down another's credibility on an obvious assumption isn't really fair, is it? I am not an American, you are not an American - if it comes right down to it ephricon probably has a better idea of how the average American behaves than either of us do.

That's my take anyhow. Although I'm not really trying to make any hard case for American internet behavior - just that I really very strongly don't believe Americans think about searching domestically versus internationally - as pretty much our country is our world, and Google.com shows us results already within our country in the vast majority of cases. In fact, I'd argue that if an American wanted to find an internation result, that would then be the exception and the type of search they would consider doing something alternative for.

PhilC said he uses .co.uk when looking for UK specific things. I'm saying in the US EVERYTHING is US-specific, and as such that's our world. We don't have as worldly view. In fact, many of us don't even think about having a "worldly" or "domestic" view. We just a view, that by default is our domestic view. Thus Google.com as it is is great. No problem. If you try to get me to do something additional to what I currently do to search the US, which is exactly what my goal is in 99% of my searches (and I'm very content with the process and results as they are), than I think you are making a mistake by misunderstanding what the US market mindset is.


We need a filter that adds "IMHO" to the end of every sentence.


Come on now - its a forum. It should be understood that EVERYTHING said that is not followed by a factual backup is nothing more than each poster's opinion. That's why there's a box around my post with my SN attached to it (ephricon) instead of the word "FACT" - so you know its merely my opinion. Forums are about opinions - if you want specific facts on American Internet Usage than don't go to a forum full of people eager to share their opinions, go to a factual source. I'd recommend the PEW Internet & American Life Project (http://www.pewinternet.org/) for one.

[PhilC]

See that's the whole point though. You said you use .co.uk when you are looking for UK specific things. Americans don't look for US-specific things. We look for things, and assume everything is US-specific. Its a different mindset we operate under.In spite of your disclaimer, which was amusing, I simply don't believe you. I'm not saying you are a liar - I'm saying that you simply don't know, and you can't speak for Americans as a whole. Without conducting any research at all, and without being an American, I can state from my own seo experience that Americans do search for U.S. specific things - lots of them. That's why SEOs optimise for U.S. specific searchterms. As I said earlier, give Americans the option, and then see what they do with it. My opinion is that they will use it, particularly when searching for things that are best supplied/provided by vendors within the same country.

It should be understood that EVERYTHING said that is not followed by a factual backup is nothing more than each poster's opinion.Slightly off-topic, but it's worth a quick mention. The thing is that it isn't generally understood. When someone states something as fact, it is taken that it is meant as fact, and not as an opinion. It's always best to add the "imo" bit or similar when it applies, because facts are often stated that are not simply the writer's opinion. In this case you spoke for Americans in general without saying that it was just an opinion, and it was picked up on. It would have got by without a word if it had had the "imo" bit, or similar.

[mcanerin]

Ephricon,

I think the process you are describing for American internet usage is not at odds with the concept of a regional result.

You are basically describing a "I'm just searching for information" mentality instead of a "I'm searching for American/International information" mentality - which I assure is the default usage for everyone new to the net, at least until they have been burned a few time and start getting more specific.

This is how an American searching for information on google currently works:

1: type in www.google.com
2. type in "buy cheap computer"
3. get result

This is how I'm proposing it work (and how it works in the rest of the world):

1: type in www.google.com (Google then figures out you are an American and switches automatically to Google.us)
2. type in "buy cheap computer"
3. get result

Except 40% of the top ten results will probably no longer be UK or Australian. Now, that wasn't so hard or painful, was it? :)

All the magic happens behind the scenes - you don't even have to think about it - the SERPs simply get more relevant.

If you decide you WANT to look worldwide, you click on the little "Go to Google.com" link on the search page and then you'll get all the UK and Australian sites you want.

Ian

[Jeff Martin]

We look for things, and assume everything is US-specific. Its a different mindset we operate under.
Well that makes two Americans. I still search that way till this day unless I know I need something specifically local. If I do then I tell G (and everyone else) buy narrowing my search by adding the region to my search.

This is why I said it would be in the best interests of both the SEs and users if the SEs were to find some way to educate people on HOW to search. Set up kiosks in the mall, have small clips or stills run when people are waiting for a movie to start in the theatres, advertising training on the main SE home page and give away beanies, blankets, lava lamps (seriously, who here doesn’t want a Google lava lamp???) upon completion (maybe 15 total mins with a simple quiz at then end).

There are limitless possibilities to what can be done and the SEs have some of the deepest pockets on Wall Street.

[ephricon]

Okay I'm done debating point by point on this thread, b/c frankly a) I simply don't care that much about it anymore, and b) more importantly, we're debating a "what if" with many possible forms of implementation - some good, some who knows.

I've not once put the term "US" into any search I've used b/c I felt the need to narrow down the results I've gotten from google.com. I continue to feel that if implemented this is the type of thing that is being "pushed" out to market rather than "pulled". I don't feel there's a need in the mind of the customer, and typically from my own experiences about marketing in general, items tend to have a higher chance for success when pulled via customer demand rather than pushed by an engineer who thinks it would be a good idea. But hey, no research here to back this up - just my opinion.

To me this whole issue though as discussed in this thread has seemed to have taken the following flavor:

Non-Americans* - "You should have a US version of Google b/c it would give you better results. You're missing out."

Americans - "Um, honestly we don't care. Just don't screw with my Google as I love it how it is now."

Seems as though the Non-Americans are trying to get us to like something that we just aren't that interested in. If the US was a country with relatively little internet presence than I see how the regional search engine value would really be helpful, but as of now I honestly don't see any significant benefit - as this is coming from someone who spends all day doing searches on Google.com in the US.

(*i'm ignorant of any proper PC term, please substitute)

[dannysullivan]

Perhaps it's worth mentioning that AltaVista has a USA search on by default. Try a search for "football," and you can see the difference. Worldwide, you get things lke FIFA, UEFA, BBC Football -- none of which means football to Americans.

Content worldwide will continue to grow, and you'll see more of this type of thing happen. A few years ago, searching for movies on AltaVista used to bring up half the page about Bollywood and Indian movies. It's not that they weren't relevant. They were, but not as much to the huge American audience using AltaVista.

I think Google's usage of Google.com is about half non-US, half US, last I heard. As we get more non-English content, more non-US content, then it may make sense for a Google USA to emerge. For now, the dominance of US content seems to be working to let it do double-duty.

[AussieWebmaster]

the .com will eventually be global and be short for comglomerate... the new financially vested state...

[pcully]

If you were to go on Google Italy (google.it), Google Germany (google.de), etc. and search for "BMW", the first result would be the BMW website for that country. If you were to search on google.com which is considered considered the "American Google", the first result would be the "BMW International" page and on the page you would select your country. If there was a true American Google, the first result would send you to BMW's website for the United States. The same is true for other search terms.

[Gabbon]

Hi,

Sorry for posting on an old thread, but maybe one of you can help me.

I have been stumped by the automatic regionalisation of Google searches in google.com, and wondered if one of you could suggest a way to circumvent this.

I do a search in Australia and I obtain predominately Australian results, I do a search in America and the same applies, and I do a search in the UK and, again, the same thing *without asking for it.*

My problem is that I now live in the UK and I would like to do searches in the US, just like i did while residing in the US. I cannot find any way to do this. google always gravitates to results found in my location. This becomes highly problematic when I need to use extensive searches for hard-to-find results in the US. I am on a back foot to obtaining the pages I seek.

Now a lot of may be subjective, but I am almost 100% certain that my results are the way I put it. My problem can be highlighted by a search I did for ISP's in Adelaide, Australia. While in Australia I could do it fine, though it took time. Now that I am in the UK, I am at a severe disadvantage to obtain suitable results.

Do you know any way I can do a US search while in the UK? Would I need to use a proxy?

Thanks

[penno]

Hi,

Sorry for posting on an old thread, but maybe one of you can help me.
Ah, yeah, me too. ;)


I do a search in Australia and I obtain predominately Australian results

Me too!!! And it's driving me *nuts*. Why did they put the "pages from Australia" search option when THAT'S WHAT YOU GET NO MATTER WHAT. (sorry for yelling - kinda got the irits heh).

Anyway, the point - does anyone have a cure? A proxy is a bit too much hassle. Using another search engine ... maybe not.

[JohnW]

>does anyone have a cure?

Using a proper proxy located in the target country is one thing that will work, even if it is a hassle. There is also a tool in adwords that might be used for this, but it's probably more of a hassle than using a proxy.

[pittfall]

I think there should be Google.us and it should be redirected to Google.com along with all of the other GEO TLDs.

[rainborick]

All of the major search engines give a great deal of weight to geo-location in their rankings, even when the user does not request a country-specific search - even in the US. That's why you need to be aware of how the search engines assign a geo-location to your site and how to control it. If your site needs to target several specific countries, check out the geo-location controls in the Google Webmaster Tools console.

[Jazajay]

Google.com is Google.us.
If I type in google.com it redirects me to .co.uk, I can not access .com at all.

So to me that says the .us domains do get a boost in the .com version.

Also under languages tools, (http://www.google.co.uk/language_tools?hl=en) located next to the input box, something that has always intrigued me is - their is every flag, and a link to the right Google domain, that has Google as a search provider but no US flag or their .com version in the list. Does the US have Google as a search provider? I guess not.

Listing .com with the American flag wouldn't offend me as I know Google is a US company. But I imagine it's because of the Geo-redirect.

It's a pain, as another poster said, way back in 05, what if I want to get a gift for someone in the US?
or as rainborick implies -

All of the major search engines give a great deal of weight to geo-location in their rankings, even when the user does not request a country-specific search
Well TBH it's not.
I just need to refine my search query. This is where your knowledge of precedence and understanding of how your results are brought to you comes in.

For example if I go to .co.uk and type in -

state maine buy car
or
buy car state maine

Note: Precedence in this case doesn't matter as both the results are similar if not exactly the same.

I get results from people trying to sell me cars. Where? O yeah the US state of Maine.

It would then be easy/easier to buy a car for my 2 friends in Maine if I was feeling generous, that said any gift should theoretically be the same, just something I noticed.

Jaza

[penno]

steadily been driven nuts. What gets me, is why can't they just leave it up to the user? Surely if the user wants (in my case) results from Australia, they'll select the "pages from Australia" option. If they aren't interested in Australia-specific results, they will select "the web" option. I don't see why Google sees a need to give Australia-specific results regardless of which option is selected. leave it up to the user imo. Currently looking for a good search engine that does just this. Altavista does so, but I'm not particularly impressed with this site.

[penno]

steadily been driven nuts. What gets me, is why can't they just leave it up to the user? Surely if the user wants (in my case) results from Australia, they'll select the "pages from Australia" option. If they aren't interested in Australia-specific results, they will select "the web" option. I don't see why Google sees a need to give Australia-specific results regardless of which option is selected. leave it up to the user imo. Currently looking for a good search engine that does just this. Altavista does so, but I'm not particularly impressed with this site.
Ok, there's an *easy* way to get around this. Obvious really, but escaped me. On the Australian google page (www.google.com.au) there's a "Go to Google.com" link. Click on that, do ya search, get normal results. woohoo!!!!